Matrimony

[Philip G.]

1.  You can't baptize yourself, but without a priest for a long period of time, you can marry before witnesses as they did in Japan.  That the couple are in fact the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is in fact de fide.  Rejecting that is heresy, which would place you outside of the Catholic Church.

2.  Matrimony is the only sacrament whose form and matter coincide in the sacramental ceremony.  This is Church teaching which you reject.  In the vow is in fact an outward sign of not only the form (the contract) but the intent expressed explicitly in visible or audible terms.

3.  You do not understand scholastic terms like form and matter, applied to the sacraments.  What you are essentially doing is privately judging the Magisterium, not to mention scholastic theology based on your private opinions/ignorance of the meaning of terms. 

4. And yet you still fail to back up your heretical error from Scripture and Tradition that the matter (expressed intention) is not expressed in the outward vow, or that the Priest (or woman, or kiss, or whatever you fancy) is the actual matter of Matrimony.

Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face as heretical, ignorant, and poorly formed.  It is a danger to your soul and everyone who would listen to such foolishness.

Watch that temper.  I have not merited such "needless sniping".  You already said you agreed with James that you have no idea what the heck I am talking about.  That much is clear.  So, don't put words in my mouth. 

[christulsa]

What he is implying is that the Priest is #3 in Fulton's statement (as opposed to God Himself), since it is not in fact in dispute that the two spouses + God make up a marriage.  We all believe that here.  He has stated several times he believes the Priest is the necessary "matter" of the sacrament.  For him, if there is no Priest as a witness, there can be never be a sacrament.  All those Japanese marriages, all Protestant marriages, all schismatic marriages (having no priest with ecclesial authority), he judges to be invalid.  Not to mention that of the "deaf and dumb."   

[christulsa]

1.  You can't baptize yourself, but without a priest for a long period of time, you can marry before witnesses as they did in Japan.  That the couple are in fact the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is in fact de fide.  Rejecting that is heresy, which would place you outside of the Catholic Church.

2.  Matrimony is the only sacrament whose form and matter coincide in the sacramental ceremony.  This is Church teaching which you reject.  In the vow is in fact an outward sign of not only the form (the contract) but the intent expressed explicitly in visible or audible terms.

3.  You do not understand scholastic terms like form and matter, applied to the sacraments.  What you are essentially doing is privately judging the Magisterium, not to mention scholastic theology based on your private opinions/ignorance of the meaning of terms. 

4. And yet you still fail to back up your heretical error from Scripture and Tradition that the matter (expressed intention) is not expressed in the outward vow, or that the Priest (or woman, or kiss, or whatever you fancy) is the actual matter of Matrimony.

Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face as heretical, ignorant, and poorly formed.  It is a danger to your soul and everyone who would listen to such foolishness.

Watch that temper.  I have not merited such "needless sniping".  You already said you agreed with James that you have no idea what the heck I am talking about.  That much is clear.  So, don't put words in my mouth.

Watch yourself.   Not only have you insulted me, and repeatedly Michael Wilson in this thread, which is besides the point, you are ridiculously and disrespectfully calling into question solemn Church teaching, like a heretic, as you have done in the past.  Like claiming "The Church for the last 1000 years has been modernist," or "The Church for the last 1000 years has shifted from worship of Christ to worship of Mary."  There is nothing edifying or Catholic arguing against the Church with that kind of blasphemy.  You need to bring all your doubts to a good traditional priest, and I guarantee they will also explain that your views are not Catholic.

[Philip G.]

...

Bishop fulton sheen would say "it takes three to get married".  That is all I am saying.  Except, I am saying for all matrimony.  Not just matrimony in catholic church buildings.  It takes three.

The third is God.

"It takes three to make love; not two: you, your spouse, and God. Without God people only succeed in bringing out the worst in one another. Lovers who have nothing else to do but love each other soon find there is nothing else. Without a central loyalty life in unfinished." ~Fulton J. Sheen

Thanks.  If three are necessary for the consummation, three are necessary for the sanction.  In the consummation, two are visible.  In the sanction, which I posted earlier, one is visible.  That is the priest, the matter.  I said earlier basically "once the rite begins, I am not going to consider the man to be his separate own, or the woman to be her separate own".   It is not an exact science when the two become one.  Like with the eucharist, after the bread has been turned into the body, we are invited to adore and taught to believe(transubstantiation), despite the communion of the priest having not occurred. 

[Philip G.]

1.  You can't baptize yourself, but without a priest for a long period of time, you can marry before witnesses as they did in Japan.  That the couple are in fact the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony is in fact de fide.  Rejecting that is heresy, which would place you outside of the Catholic Church.

2.  Matrimony is the only sacrament whose form and matter coincide in the sacramental ceremony.  This is Church teaching which you reject.  In the vow is in fact an outward sign of not only the form (the contract) but the intent expressed explicitly in visible or audible terms.

3.  You do not understand scholastic terms like form and matter, applied to the sacraments.  What you are essentially doing is privately judging the Magisterium, not to mention scholastic theology based on your private opinions/ignorance of the meaning of terms. 

4. And yet you still fail to back up your heretical error from Scripture and Tradition that the matter (expressed intention) is not expressed in the outward vow, or that the Priest (or woman, or kiss, or whatever you fancy) is the actual matter of Matrimony.

Therefore, your argument falls flat on its face as heretical, ignorant, and poorly formed.  It is a danger to your soul and everyone who would listen to such foolishness.

Watch that temper.  I have not merited such "needless sniping".  You already said you agreed with James that you have no idea what the heck I am talking about.  That much is clear.  So, don't put words in my mouth.

Watch yourself.   Not only have you insulted me, and repeatedly Michael Wilson in this thread, which is besides the point, you are ridiculously and disrespectfully calling into question solemn Church teaching, like a heretic, as you have done in the past.  Like claiming "The Church for the last 1000 years has been modernist," or "The Church for the last 1000 years has shifted from worship of Christ to worship of Mary."  There is nothing edifying or Catholic arguing against the Church with that kind of blasphemy.  You need to bring all your doubts to a good traditional priest, and I guarantee they will also explain that your views are not Catholic.

It is not my problem that you have taken an interest in me.  I go about my business because it is my business.  I have not been bringing up the past every chance I get like you do with me.  If you want to sort your concerns out, do as the forum recommends, and do it privately.  I have yet to receive a PM. 

[christulsa]

Buddy I have no interest in you personally, so stop your whining.   I'm engaging the debate, and am in fact one of the only ones taking the time to do so.  I've demonstrated that your views are heretical.  You oppose the Popes and Magisterium, and refuse to back up your heresy with anything explicitly from Scripture or Tradition.  Stop personalizing and man up.  Be logical.  Show us the proof.  You wanted a serious semi-scholarly debate on a theological or philosophical subject. 

Give one quote to back up the claim that the Priest is the "matter" of the sacrament.  I don't think you can, because from posts in this thread, you're making up your own theology for some personal reason to call into question the sacramental validity of other people's marriage. 

[Non Nobis]

...

Bishop fulton sheen would say "it takes three to get married".  That is all I am saying.  Except, I am saying for all matrimony.  Not just matrimony in catholic church buildings.  It takes three.

The third is God.

"It takes three to make love; not two: you, your spouse, and God. Without God people only succeed in bringing out the worst in one another. Lovers who have nothing else to do but love each other soon find there is nothing else. Without a central loyalty life in unfinished." ~Fulton J. Sheen

Thanks.  If three are necessary for the consummation, three are necessary for the sanction.  In the consummation, two are visible.  In the sanction, which I posted earlier, one is visible.  That is the priest, the matter.  I said earlier basically "once the rite begins, I am not going to consider the man to be his separate own, or the woman to be her separate own".   It is not an exact science when the two become one.  Like with the eucharist, after the bread has been turned into the body, we are invited to adore and taught to believe(transubstantiation), despite the communion of the priest having not occurred.

All I am reading is YOUR explanation of things.  Can you quote some Catholic authority (scripture, Pope, etc) that explicitly says that the priest is the matter of the Sacrament?  Christulsa and Michael make more sense to me right now. You sound like you are trying to be a independent Catholic thinker, a kind of novel-trad saying things that no Pope or Saint said before and contrary to what they said:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5042.htm

Article 1. Whether matrimony is a sacrament?

Objection 1. It would seem that matrimony is not a sacrament. For every sacrament of the New Law has a form that is essential to the sacrament. But the blessing given by the priest at a wedding is not essential to matrimony. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 2. Further, a sacrament according to Hugh (De Sacram. i) is "a material element." But matrimony has not a material element for its matter. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's Passion. But matrimony, since it has pleasure annexed to it, does not conform man to Christ's Passion, which was painful. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 4. Further, every sacrament of the New Law causes that which it signifies. Yet matrimony does not cause the union of Christ with the Church, which union it signifies. Therefore matrimony is not a sacrament.

Objection 5. Further, in the other sacraments there is something which is reality and sacrament. But this is not to be found in matrimony, since it does not imprint a character, else it would not be repeated. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

On the contrary, It is written (Ephesians 5:32): "This is a great sacrament." Therefore, etc.

Further, a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing. But such is Matrimony. Therefore, etc.

I answer that, A sacrament denotes a sanctifying remedy against sin offered to man under sensible signs [Cf. III:61:1; III:65:1]. Wherefore since this is the case in matrimony, it is reckoned among the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1. The words whereby the marriage consent is expressed are the form of this sacrament, and not the priest's blessing, which is a sacramental.

Reply to Objection 2. The sacrament of Matrimony, like that of Penance, is perfected by the act of the recipient. Wherefore just as Penance has no other matter than the sensible acts themselves, which take the place of the material element, so it is in Matrimony.

[christulsa]

Reply to Objection 2. The sacrament of Matrimony, like that of Penance, is perfected by the act of the recipient. Wherefore just as Penance has no other matter than the sensible acts themselves, which take the place of the material element, so it is in Matrimony.

Sensible acts = the matter of both Penance and Matrimony - St. Thomas Aquinas, the Universal Doctor of the Church

The difference is that the Priest is the minister or source of absolution, whereas the minister or source of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the spouses themselves (De Fide dogma, btw).  They confer marriage on each other, by virtue of their baptism, which is unique compared to the other 6 sacraments.  Which explains why in Matrimony form and matter coincide in the actual vow (the statement of contract) itself together.   The form is the vow.  The minister is the man and woman.  And the matter is their intention actualized in the act of taking the vow (as a "sensible act" according to the Angelic Doctor).

In other words, the vow itself, i.e. the "I Do" is the FORM, whereas the actual vocalization or writing down of the vow is the material, sensible act (MATTER).  Christ chose to institute it this way, unlike Baptism that needs the substance of water, or the Eucharist that needs the substance of bread/wine.  The sacramental sign of matrimonial grace being given by God is the couple taking the vow.  Period.  Christ made it that way.

He said in Reply #35, arguing with Wilson:  "But, I will say that I am not the usurper in this conversation.  I am basing my opinion off of scripture and tradition, and in conformity with both.  The pope is not "tradition", and the probabil(ior)ists who seek to replace the fathers of the church, who in a very real way gave us scripture(st. jerome), flooding our literature with errors(to the right and to the left) do not constitute "scripture".

Unless he can show how the Popes are wrong from the Fathers, Scripture, and Tradition, then Phillip's argument falls flat on its face.  I rest my case.

[Philip G.]

...

Bishop fulton sheen would say "it takes three to get married".  That is all I am saying.  Except, I am saying for all matrimony.  Not just matrimony in catholic church buildings.  It takes three.

The third is God.

"It takes three to make love; not two: you, your spouse, and God. Without God people only succeed in bringing out the worst in one another. Lovers who have nothing else to do but love each other soon find there is nothing else. Without a central loyalty life in unfinished." ~Fulton J. Sheen

Thanks.  If three are necessary for the consummation, three are necessary for the sanction.  In the consummation, two are visible.  In the sanction, which I posted earlier, one is visible.  That is the priest, the matter.  I said earlier basically "once the rite begins, I am not going to consider the man to be his separate own, or the woman to be her separate own".   It is not an exact science when the two become one.  Like with the eucharist, after the bread has been turned into the body, we are invited to adore and taught to believe(transubstantiation), despite the communion of the priest having not occurred.

All I am reading is YOUR explanation of things.  Can you quote some Catholic authority (scripture, Pope, etc) that explicitly says that the priest is the matter of the Sacrament?  Christulsa and Michael make more sense to me right now. You sound like you are trying to be a independent Catholic thinker, a kind of novel-trad saying things that no Pope or Saint said before and contrary to what they said:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5042.htm

Article 1. Whether matrimony is a sacrament?

Objection 1. It would seem that matrimony is not a sacrament. For every sacrament of the New Law has a form that is essential to the sacrament. But the blessing given by the priest at a wedding is not essential to matrimony. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 2. Further, a sacrament according to Hugh (De Sacram. i) is "a material element." But matrimony has not a material element for its matter. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's Passion. But matrimony, since it has pleasure annexed to it, does not conform man to Christ's Passion, which was painful. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 4. Further, every sacrament of the New Law causes that which it signifies. Yet matrimony does not cause the union of Christ with the Church, which union it signifies. Therefore matrimony is not a sacrament.

Objection 5. Further, in the other sacraments there is something which is reality and sacrament. But this is not to be found in matrimony, since it does not imprint a character, else it would not be repeated. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

On the contrary, It is written (Ephesians 5:32): "This is a great sacrament." Therefore, etc.

Further, a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing. But such is Matrimony. Therefore, etc.

I answer that, A sacrament denotes a sanctifying remedy against sin offered to man under sensible signs [Cf. III:61:1; III:65:1]. Wherefore since this is the case in matrimony, it is reckoned among the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1. The words whereby the marriage consent is expressed are the form of this sacrament, and not the priest's blessing, which is a sacramental.

Reply to Objection 2. The sacrament of Matrimony, like that of Penance, is perfected by the act of the recipient. Wherefore just as Penance has no other matter than the sensible acts themselves, which take the place of the material element, so it is in Matrimony.

I have a question for you.  Have you ever questioned, even if only for a moment, whether you have satisfactorily completed your penance?

[Philip G.]

Article 1. Whether matrimony is a sacrament?

Objection 1. It would seem that matrimony is not a sacrament. For every sacrament of the New Law has a form that is essential to the sacrament. But the blessing given by the priest at a wedding is not essential to matrimony. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 2. Further, a sacrament according to Hugh (De Sacram. i) is "a material element." But matrimony has not a material element for its matter. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 3. Further, the sacraments derive their efficacy from Christ's Passion. But matrimony, since it has pleasure annexed to it, does not conform man to Christ's Passion, which was painful. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 4. Further, every sacrament of the New Law causes that which it signifies. Yet matrimony does not cause the union of Christ with the Church, which union it signifies. Therefore matrimony is not a sacrament.

Objection 5. Further, in the other sacraments there is something which is reality and sacrament. But this is not to be found in matrimony, since it does not imprint a character, else it would not be repeated. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

On the contrary, It is written (Ephesians 5:32): "This is a great sacrament." Therefore, etc.

Further, a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing. But such is Matrimony. Therefore, etc.

I answer that, A sacrament denotes a sanctifying remedy against sin offered to man under sensible signs [Cf. III:61:1; III:65:1]. Wherefore since this is the case in matrimony, it is reckoned among the sacraments.

Reply to Objection 1. The words whereby the marriage consent is expressed are the form of this sacrament, and not the priest's blessing, which is a sacramental.

Reply to Objection 2. The sacrament of Matrimony, like that of Penance, is perfected by the act of the recipient. Wherefore just as Penance has no other matter than the sensible acts themselves, which take the place of the material element, so it is in Matrimony.

[/quote]

In penance, the words of the priest satisfies the form, while the "acts" of the penitent satisfies the matter.  To apply the modernistic understanding of marriage matter/form to penance would result in the words of the priest satisfying the form, and his action of speaking satisfying the matter.  And, that of course it not it, just as it would not be it in matrimony. 

[christulsa]

You're making this more complicated than it is.

The sensible acts of the spouses taking the vow satisfy the matter of matrimony;  just as the sensible act of confessing sins satisfies the matter of penance.

De fide dogma:  the man and woman are the ministers of matrimony;  the priest is the minister of penance.

[Philip G.]

Just as Mary said Fiat, Christ turned water into wine. 

Those who enter orders are "called" by the bishop. 

[Philip G.]

I am glad we took a little break from this discussion.  But, I wish to continue.  For, there may be someone who is so inclined as to piece together the information I put forth. 

As for Aquinas, at least you are getting somewhere.  However, you have reached the end of your road.  Aquinas may be your strongest argument, but it is weak in my book, no offense.  Yes, it explains the situation, but a scholarly explanation of an error is still nothing more than an explanation of an error.  The novel vocabulary and systematic display of aquinas may memorize red blooded males.  But, I will not be derailed by an appeal to authority or appeal to the male ego/intellect. The only appeal that will do in a church whose leaders are blind and deaf is an appeal to the "natural light of human reason". 

[Philip G.]

This just came to me.  Let us take "the matchmaker" for example.  If you don't know much about Judaism, let me fill you in as to their guiding principle.  It is, "what is bad for the gentiles, is good for the jews"(opposite of Christ's Golden rule "do unto others as you would have done unto you").  If "consent" of the spouses alone is sufficient for marriage of non catholics, then "pre""consent" of the matchmaker is required for jews.  On its face, it would almost seem that the jews have marriage rubrics that mirror catholicism, but in an abstract way, which is not surprising.   Instead of a priest functioning in a receiving sense as a "witness" or "judge of consent", in judaism the matchmaker functions in a giving/creative sense, a role which could hardly be mistaken for anything but substantial/necessary to the occurrence of their sacrament, unlike many perceive in catholicism.  If matchmaking is good for jews, then the jews, who strive to influence everything outside of them, would strive for there to exist no such remotely close figure among the gentiles.  Thanks to post medieval papal teaching sanctioning the clandestine and the deaf/mute, no such figure need exist among gentiles. 

Current catholic marriage theology bolsters modern judaism.  The jews place unmatched emphasis on the "witness" that I speak of in the form of the matchmaker.  Being that the church is protected and guided by the Holy Ghost, it is God's will that a priest is required for catholic marriage, despite our claim as to not know why.  But, we are also called to evangelize, and to teach all nations.

If you are looking for a more "reasonable" manifestation of the "matter" of the sacrament of matrimony than "desire" of the spouses, the existence of a jewish matchmaker provides a compelling argument.